29 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Altadis U.S.A., Inc. v. Prince George's Countygreen2 sentences2019Allied Vending , 332 Md. at 304 , 631 A.2d 77 ; Skipper, 329 Md. at 493 , 620 A.2d 880 ; see also Altadis , 431 Md. at 319 , 65 A.3d 118 ("The General Assembly's rejection of bills imposing the same requirements as the local legislation is significant in a preemption analysis."). 31 The implied preemption authorities, where amendment rejection is relied upon, emphasize the "repeated" failure of legislative change. 2019Allied Vending , 332 Md. at 304 , 631 A.2d 77 ; Skipper, 329 Md. at 493 , 620 A.2d 880 ; see also Altadis , 431 Md. at 319 , 65 A.3d 118 ("The General Assembly's rejection of bills imposing the same requirements as the local legislation is significant in a preemption analysis."). 31 The implied preemption authorities, where amendment rejection is relied upon, emphasize the "repeated" failure of legislative change. | 4 | 4 |
Ad + Soil, Inc. v. County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2017The preemption doctrine “is grounded upon the authority of the General Assembly to reserve for itself exclusive dominion over an entire field of legislative concern.” Ad+Soil, Inc. v. County Commissioners, 307 Md. 307, 324 (1986). 2017The preemption doctrine “is grounded upon the authority of the General Assembly to reserve for itself exclusive dominion over an entire field of legislative concern.” Ad+Soil, Inc. v. County Commissioners, 307 Md. 307, 324 (1986). | 2 | 3 |
Village of Lacona v. New York State Department of Agriculture & Marketsgreen2 sentences2019See Village of Lacona v. State, Dep't of Agric. and Mkts. , 51 A.D.3d 1319 , 858 N.Y.S.2d 833 (2008) (New York vests exclusive jurisdiction in a state agency); Ames v. Smoot , 98 A.D.2d 216 , 471 N.Y.S.2d 128 (1983) (same); Long Island Pest Control Ass'n v. Town of Huntington , 72 Misc.2d 1031 , 341 N.Y.S.2d 93 (1973) (same); Minn. Agric. 2019See Village of Lacona v. State, Dep't of Agric. and Mkts. , 51 A.D.3d 1319 , 858 N.Y.S.2d 833 (2008) (New York vests exclusive jurisdiction in a state agency); Ames v. Smoot , 98 A.D.2d 216 , 471 N.Y.S.2d 128 (1983) (same); Long Island Pest Control Ass'n v. Town of Huntington , 72 Misc.2d 1031 , 341 N.Y.S.2d 93 (1973) (same); Minn. Agric. | 2 | 2 |
Allied Vending, Inc. v. City of Bowiegreen2 sentences2019Allied Vending , 332 Md. at 304 , 631 A.2d 77 ; Skipper, 329 Md. at 493 , 620 A.2d 880 ; see also Altadis , 431 Md. at 319 , 65 A.3d 118 ("The General Assembly's rejection of bills imposing the same requirements as the local legislation is significant in a preemption analysis."). 31 The implied preemption authorities, where amendment rejection is relied upon, emphasize the "repeated" failure of legislative change. 2019Allied Vending , 332 Md. at 304 , 631 A.2d 77 ; Skipper, 329 Md. at 493 , 620 A.2d 880 ; see also Altadis , 431 Md. at 319 , 65 A.3d 118 ("The General Assembly's rejection of bills imposing the same requirements as the local legislation is significant in a preemption analysis."). 31 The implied preemption authorities, where amendment rejection is relied upon, emphasize the "repeated" failure of legislative change. | 1 | 4 |
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpentersgreen2 sentences1991Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 , 98 S.Ct. 1745 , 56 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978), is dispositive of the preemption claim. 1991Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 , 98 S.Ct. 1745 , 56 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978), is dispositive of the preemption claim. | 1 | 3 |
Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warrengreen2 sentences2026The dissent posits that because this case alleges a fraud, the local governments’ claims arise from the “state’s historic police powers,” and therefore, we must apply a preemption framework to the local governments’ claims in a manner similar to cases such as Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. 761 (2019); Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008); and Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 51 U.S. 504 (1992). 2026Preemption analysis, the Court explained, should “depend[] on what the State did, not why it did it.” Id. at 774 (lead opinion) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.green1 sentence2026The Supreme Court has been explicit: the preemption inquiry requires the court to identify “the target at which the state law aims[.]” Oneok, 575 U.S. at 385 (italics in original). | 1 | 1 |
James W. Smith v. Comair, Incorporated Delta Airlines, Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2025Looking to the phrase “relating to,” 14 the Court concluded that 14 “Before recodification in 1994, the preemption clause read, in relevant part: ‘No State or political subdivision thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of two or more States shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier . . . .’” Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254, 257 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting 49 U.S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776green2 sentences2017See id. at 191-94 , 98 S.Ct. 1745 (citing, inter alia, Garner, 346 U.S. 485 , 74 S.Ct. 161 , 98 L.Ed. 228 ). 2017See id. at 191-94 , 98 S.Ct. 1745 (citing, inter alia, Garner, 346 U.S. 485 , 74 S.Ct. 161 , 98 L.Ed. 228 ). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Marriage of Heraldgreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., Guardianship of O.D. v. Dillard, 177 So.3d 175, 186 (Miss. 2015), reh’g denied (Nov. 12, 2015) (holding that the "major damage” standard applies to a preemption analysis of state domestic relations law); In re Marriage of Herald & Steadman, 355 Or. 104 , 322 P.3d 546, 553 (2014) (same); Smith v. McIntosh, 70 So.3d 1277, 1280 (Ala. Civ. 2017See, e.g., Guardianship of O.D. v. Dillard, 177 So.3d 175, 186 (Miss. 2015), reh’g denied (Nov. 12, 2015) (holding that the "major damage” standard applies to a preemption analysis of state domestic relations law); In re Marriage of Herald & Steadman, 355 Or. 104 , 322 P.3d 546, 553 (2014) (same); Smith v. McIntosh, 70 So.3d 1277, 1280 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. McINTOSHgreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Guardianship of O.D. v. Dillard, 177 So.3d 175, 186 (Miss. 2015), reh’g denied (Nov. 12, 2015) (holding that the "major damage” standard applies to a preemption analysis of state domestic relations law); In re Marriage of Herald & Steadman, 355 Or. 104 , 322 P.3d 546, 553 (2014) (same); Smith v. McIntosh, 70 So.3d 1277, 1280 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Biondo v. Biondogreen2 sentences2017App. 2011) (same); Biondo v. Biondo, 291 Mich.App. 720 , 809 N.W.2d 397, 399-400 (2011) (same). 19 . 2017App. 2011) (same); Biondo v. Biondo, 291 Mich.App. 720 , 809 N.W.2d 397, 399-400 (2011) (same). 19 . | 1 | 1 |
Ashley Healthcare Plan v. Michael Dillardgreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Guardianship of O.D. v. Dillard, 177 So.3d 175, 186 (Miss. 2015), reh’g denied (Nov. 12, 2015) (holding that the "major damage” standard applies to a preemption analysis of state domestic relations law); In re Marriage of Herald & Steadman, 355 Or. 104 , 322 P.3d 546, 553 (2014) (same); Smith v. McIntosh, 70 So.3d 1277, 1280 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Schouest v. Medtronic, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Schouest, 13 F.Supp.3d at 708 (“a deceptive act in the promotion of the Infuse device would survive a preemption challenge for the same reasons that [the plaintiffj’s fraud and negligent misrepresentations claim [sic] would”). 14 2. | 1 | 1 |
Coalition for Open Doors v. Annapolis Lodge No. 622green1 sentence2013Coalition for Open Doors v. Annapolis Lodge No. 622, 333 Md. 359, 379 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Belknap, Inc. v. Halegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Vaca v. Sipesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCarthy v. Bd. of Education of AA Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Talbot County v. Skipper
green
2 sentences2019Allied Vending , 332 Md. at 304 , 631 A.2d 77 ; Skipper, 329 Md. at 493 , 620 A.2d 880 ; see also Altadis , 431 Md. at 319 , 65 A.3d 118 ("The General Assembly's rejection of bills imposing the same requirements as the local legislation is significant in a preemption analysis."). 31 The implied preemption authorities, where amendment rejection is relied upon, emphasize the "repeated" failure of legislative change. 2019Allied Vending , 332 Md. at 304 , 631 A.2d 77 ; Skipper, 329 Md. at 493 , 620 A.2d 880 ; see also Altadis , 431 Md. at 319 , 65 A.3d 118 ("The General Assembly's rejection of bills imposing the same requirements as the local legislation is significant in a preemption analysis."). 31 The implied preemption authorities, where amendment rejection is relied upon, emphasize the "repeated" failure of legislative change. | 4 | 2013–2019 |
Hunter v. BD. OF EDUC., MONT. CNTY.
green
2 sentences2022Observing that the Coverdell Act “does not provide immunity for employers of teachers or for local school boards,” the Court of Special Appeals proceeded to determine whether the circuit court correctly concluded that the negligent acts fell within the educational malpractice doctrine that this Court described in Hunter, 292 Md. 481 , which prohibits claims alleging negligence related to academic placement or decision-making. 2022Observing that the Coverdell Act “does not provide immunity for employers of teachers or for local school boards,” the Court of Special Appeals proceeded to determine whether the circuit court correctly concluded that the negligent acts fell within the educational malpractice doctrine that this Court described in Hunter, 292 Md. 481 , which prohibits claims alleging negligence related to academic placement or decision-making. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Ames v. Smoot
green
2 sentences2019See Village of Lacona v. State, Dep't of Agric. and Mkts. , 51 A.D.3d 1319 , 858 N.Y.S.2d 833 (2008) (New York vests exclusive jurisdiction in a state agency); Ames v. Smoot , 98 A.D.2d 216 , 471 N.Y.S.2d 128 (1983) (same); Long Island Pest Control Ass'n v. Town of Huntington , 72 Misc.2d 1031 , 341 N.Y.S.2d 93 (1973) (same); Minn. Agric. 2019See Village of Lacona v. State, Dep't of Agric. and Mkts. , 51 A.D.3d 1319 , 858 N.Y.S.2d 833 (2008) (New York vests exclusive jurisdiction in a state agency); Ames v. Smoot , 98 A.D.2d 216 , 471 N.Y.S.2d 128 (1983) (same); Long Island Pest Control Ass'n v. Town of Huntington , 72 Misc.2d 1031 , 341 N.Y.S.2d 93 (1973) (same); Minn. Agric. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Long Island Pest Control Ass'n v. Town of Huntington
neutral
2 sentences2019See Village of Lacona v. State, Dep't of Agric. and Mkts. , 51 A.D.3d 1319 , 858 N.Y.S.2d 833 (2008) (New York vests exclusive jurisdiction in a state agency); Ames v. Smoot , 98 A.D.2d 216 , 471 N.Y.S.2d 128 (1983) (same); Long Island Pest Control Ass'n v. Town of Huntington , 72 Misc.2d 1031 , 341 N.Y.S.2d 93 (1973) (same); Minn. Agric. 2019See Village of Lacona v. State, Dep't of Agric. and Mkts. , 51 A.D.3d 1319 , 858 N.Y.S.2d 833 (2008) (New York vests exclusive jurisdiction in a state agency); Ames v. Smoot , 98 A.D.2d 216 , 471 N.Y.S.2d 128 (1983) (same); Long Island Pest Control Ass'n v. Town of Huntington , 72 Misc.2d 1031 , 341 N.Y.S.2d 93 (1973) (same); Minn. Agric. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Kent Island Defense League, LLC v. Queen Anne's County Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2017League, 145 Md. 2017League, 145 Md. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
green
2 sentences2003In Garmon , however, the Supreme Court created two exceptions to the preemption doctrine for certain classes of eases and stated: “where the activity regulated was a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act ... [o]r where the regulated conduct touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act.” Id. at 243-44 , 79 S.Ct. at 779 , 3 L.Ed.2d at 782 . 10 These exceptions provide a sense of the scope of the preemption *47 2003In Garmon , however, the Supreme Court created two exceptions to the preemption doctrine for certain classes of eases and stated: “where the activity regulated was a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act ... [o]r where the regulated conduct touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act.” Id. at 243-44 , 79 S.Ct. at 779 , 3 L.Ed.2d at 782 . 10 These exceptions provide a sense of the scope of the preemption *47 | 2 | 1986–2003 |
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C.
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 214–20. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
green
1 sentence2026The dissent posits that because this case alleges a fraud, the local governments’ claims arise from the “state’s historic police powers,” and therefore, we must apply a preemption framework to the local governments’ claims in a manner similar to cases such as Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. 761 (2019); Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008); and Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 51 U.S. 504 (1992). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
City of New York v. Chevron Corp.
green
1 sentence2026As the Second Circuit observed, “[a]lthough the Supreme Court in Ouellette appeared to rely, at least in part, on the traditional preemption analysis under which courts should not lightly infer preemption of state law claims,” the Ouellette Court also found support for its ultimate conclusion—that the Clean Water Act had preempted state-law nuisance claims—by looking to Milwaukee I, which held that, even in the absence of a federal statutory scheme, “the control of interstate pollution is primarily a matter of federal law[.]” Id. at 103 n.11 (citation modified) (citing Ouellette, 479 U.S. at 4 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
International Paper Co. v. Ouellette
green
2 sentences2026Applying the preemption framework adopted by the United States Supreme Court in International Paper Company v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987), the Supreme Court of Maryland held that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the broad state law claims under its saving clause. 2026Applying the preemption framework adopted by the Supreme Court in International Paper Company v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987), we hold that that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the broad state law claims under its saving clause. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Blackwell v. State
green
1 sentence2021As noted, the cases to which appellant cites found preemption in situations involving “unintended homicides resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.” Blackwell, 34 Md. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
East Star, LLC v. County Commissioners
green
1 sentence2019Comm'rs of Queen Anne's Cty. , 203 Md. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hosford v. Chateau Foghorn LP
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 510-12, 145 A.3d 616 . 2017Id. at 510 , 145 A.3d 616 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Holiday Point Marina Partners v. Anne Arundel County
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 197, 707 A.2d 829 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Batson v. Shiflett green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Harbor Island Marina v. BOARD OF CTY. COMMISSIONERS OF CALVERT CTY. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114 green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Moore v. State neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Resh v. Resh green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Russell green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25 green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Lodge 76, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.